January, 2023 The Mayor and Village Board voted to institute a Moratorium in each of the Commercial zoning districts for six months while the code is studied by an appointed Waterfront Planning and Advisory Committee with public listening sessions. Advocacy for a Moratorium was led by Kevin Stuessi who packed the Fire House with those in support and presenting petitions signed by hundreds of others.
7/14/22 The Village Board has big issues to ponder: saving the working waterfront, avoiding the chain-store-anywhere character that took over the South Fork, and keeping the last remaining rentals from becoming short-term seasonal stays as well as how to incorporate affordable rentals into the character of our Village. Oh yes, the new hotel at the center of Greenport with parking at the Soundview? You must have an opinion. Three of the five Board members have indicated a desire for a moratorium on new developments and a focused effort to update the code on such issues. Come and hear them discuss on June 21st at 7 PM meeting in the Firehouse and share your thoughts at the end or by email. Other meetings too: https://villageofgreenport.org/calendar/
On 2/17/21 the Board discussed a draft of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Law and the Mayor said he hoped the Board could agree on a draft in March for an April Public Hearing. Draft was kept confidential. Vague mention of Waterfront Commercial being allowed to have rentals and concerns were expressed. It was suggested the map change so that land-locked commercial on Front Street be mapped as Commercial rather than Waterfront Commercial–then rentals would be legal.
At the 10/21/21 work session revising the code was discussed. However by the December meetings nothing was put forward. It was suggested that a new Thursday meeting a month might be devoted to addressing unresolved problems.
At the December ZBA meeting the problem of residential properties with no on site parking arose. The Planning Board had not reviewed the site plan as required by Code for additions over 20% for the property under review. Only the Planning Board can offer the option of payment in lieu of parking. The Village Administrator said it was the Village policy to save volunteers on the Planning Board from too much work. The ZBA approved the waver but the Village did not receive funds they could have to address parking issues.
On 9/16/21 the Mayor called for the elimination of “grandfathering” older commercial buildings for parking. Owners currently have no responsibility to provide parking space if the use changes, for instance from a shop with little traffic to a high volume restaurant. He also mentioned increasing the rate to pay for parking that an owner cannot provide, now only used for new commercial construction. Trustee Phillips said the uses should be revisited for Waterfront Commercial zoning in order to preserve it. Trustee Robins who had started the discussion of “grandfathering” above, also called for a moratorium on waterfront commercial development until the code could be looked at carefully. Curb cuts are another section of the code to be revised.
123 Sterling:
On 10/21/21 Trustees Phillips, Robins, and Clarke expressed strong reservations about the latest draft agreement that resulted from a back and forth between the Developer and the Village but it was not made public. The Trustees would prefer a lottery to ensure fairness in purchasing these below market condos. They would prefer that there would be perpetuity to this one benefit to the Village as the developer was allowed to build condos in Waterfront Commercial not allowed by the zoning code. And although the ground floor was to be commercial, the Planning Board prohibited the condo owners from renting each space for any reason, even if the resident owners upstairs approved the commercial use.
On 9/16/21 the Village attorney stated at the Village Work session that he had prepared a draft of the Covenants. It relates to the “affordable” apartments but he did not mention how it relates to waterfront commercial ground floor uses.
On July 29th at 4PM, the Planning Board will ratify a legal agreement that requires each commercial space to be owned by a condo upstairs and prohibits those condo owners from renting to a business, even if approved by the Condo Association. It will solidify that the “Waterfront Commercial” use will only be an accessory to residential.
On May 27th, the Planning Board decided indoor parking would be allowed as accessory to the commercial uses on the ground floor. They gave stipulations to try to ensure the ground floor would indeed be commercial, as the developer was given enormous concessions to be able to put condos in a Waterfront Commercial zone. It remains a mystery how the Village can allow Yacht Clubs to be considered appropriate if owned by a resident and used as accessory space to residential use. The developer swore it would be legitimate commercial uses–so something to watch as he has other plans to develop in and around the Village.
At the 3/18 Village Board meeting, the Mayor announced that the Planning Board would not review the proposal as a result of the ZBA decision to reject one piece of the modifications. The Developer would be wise to submit to Planning anyway as the Board can help figure out a way to absorb the parking within the lot, rather than head-in parking through a long continuous curb-cut with no sidewalk at the intersection. The Village Engineer/Administrator stands by the safety of the 2007 on-street parking design.
From the Court Stipulated 2007 Agreement:
123 Sterling agrees that the Modified Plans are to be submitted for approval to the Village Boards in connection with the review of this agreement.
From various recollections, there were no further reviews after the Court Order was signed by all parties. Certainly a study of pedestrian safety was not undertaken.
123 Sterling agrees to use its best efforts to obtain any remaining approvals to effectuate the Modified Plans.
Note “remaining approvals” would indicate that the schematics in the 2007 agreement were to receive further review and approvals. Note also that the developer was to use “best efforts” and waiting 13 years to proceed indicates the opposite of a “best effort.” The Building Department should have brought it before each of the signatories for consideration since no effort was made to proceed with the plan for more than a decade.
On 3/15, the ZBA denied the developer the right to remove 1/3 of the required ground floor Waterfront Commercial use to private parking. Next stop will be the Planning Board Public Hearing, Thursday, 3/25 at 4 PM in the Firehouse and possibly online. Will the site plan reviewers reduce the number of 12 private bathrooms to a couple of shared instead? Will they address whether a residential condo owner owning a much smaller “commercial” space with an interior access is really just a home office? Will they insist that head-in angled parking be removed from Sterling?
The Village will consider the developer’s proposed changes to a 2007 Court Stipulated Agreement that allowed residential on the 2nd and 3rd floors of a to-be-built building because residential is not permitted in Waterfront Commercial. This was a big concession to neighbors to avoid high-rise boat storage with fork-lifts beeping all day. Waterfront Commercial use would be required only on the 1st floor and 1/3 of the second for a double height ceiling on the 1st. Each of the signers (Village Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board and neighborhood group) of the 2007 agreement need to agree to this new proposal. The developer proposes to make all the commercial an amenity for the residential use. Each market rate purchaser would have the opportunity to buy an indoor parking spot and one of the 12 units dividing the rest of the commercial, each with a private bathroom and counter with sink–no doors to the water, interior access shared with the condos. The developer calls them “yacht clubs” as if an individual can have their own private yacht club.
The neighborhood group was happy the changes included removing angled parking from the front of he building, however the Village has the absolute right to control curb-cuts for driveways. This should have been considered in 2007 and since the court agreement said it was not circumventing all reviews, it should be addressed now.
The developer has made some concessions on the 5 units of affordable housing but they are still to purchase and buyers must pay the regular maintenance along with the market rate condos.
____________________
In November, the developer of 123 Sterling came up with a revised new plan in collaboration with the local neighborhood group in hopes of revising the Court Stipulated Agreement from 2007…rather than seeking new approvals from scratch. The plans are on the Village website: http://villageofgreenport.org/files/Potential-Alterations-to-the-2007-Stipulation-for-the-123-Sterling-Avenue-property.pdf. Any changes need the approval of the initial signatories: local group and all three of the Village Boards, plus the Historic Review Board because of its proximity to the district. Instead of one combined public presentation, it appears that each of the three Boards will hold Public Hearings and consider their decision. Each may also seek to negotiate details.
The community group and developer benefited from the volunteer design help of talented Village professionals. Their aesthetic improvements will be a benefit for all.
One controversial issue may be the apparent elimination of ground floor waterfront commercial use. Instead of water-dependent commercial use, 12 small offices with individual bathrooms and in-room sink-in-a-counter would be a bonus to each of the market-rate condo buyers who would also get a private storage space on the third of the 2nd floor that was approved as a double height ceiling for the ground floor commercial and an indoor parking spot. Will this be the beginning of the end of Greenport’s working waterfront?
9/15/20 Zoning Board of Appeals
For the Greenporter Hotel‘s expansion plans with a third story and bridge building across the front, the Board expressed much concern about the lack of parking; explained that they allowed a third floor for the Menhaden Hotel because of its context, next to the tall Greenport Movie Theater; that the criteria for their decision could not legally be based upon the wonderful character of the owner or the owner’s desire to grow their business; yet after all that and much discussion and a recess because it was going so long–they approved a 35’ high flat-walled three-story expansion facing a residential district to the north and peaked roof mixed-use building to the east. For the number of rooms and 5 staff, the code requires 58 parking spots and they currently have only 31. They voted to wave the need for 7 spaces since the Planning Board can allow a lack of up to 20 for a fee.
The Zoning Code says buildings can be 35′ or 2 1/2 stories. The Greenporter Hotel could have proposed expanding only the front half of the building to be three stories as-of-right without ZBA approval. The intent of the height law was to conform to Greenport’s peaked roof architecture with the 1/2 being under the peak. The Village Code can be revised to require stepping back buildings, at least for residential zones. However if you can get whatever exception to the code you might want from the ZBA…..
8/27/20 Village Board
The Village Board held a public hearing 8/27/20 to kick off a review process for 123 Sterling as the developer hoped to make changes to the 2007 court stipulation agreement. That agreement to have condos on part of a 2nd floor and all of a 3rd floor, with five 600 sq. ft. affordable apartments as well. plus ground floor waterfront commercial use. This had been agreed upon by each Village Board and the Sterling Basin Neighborhood Association. The chair of the neighborhood group read a statement that they were all unified in sticking with the original agreement. The developer said he would then withdraw his change requests and pursue the 2007 concept. People continued to speak expressing some concern about the steel going up in the last few days without a posted Building Permit and wondered how this was overseen by the Village. The Village explained that an engineer was hired, funded by the developer, and that he as reviewing and overseeing the construction on behalf of the Board based upon plans filed with the Village.
In another related issue, the developer for 123 had received a wetlands permit to rebuild and raise the height of a bulkhead with the stipulation that boats not be docked on the main channel. The developer asked that he be allowed to use part of the main channel for boat parking but not all of it and that was to be voted on at the 8/28 meeting. Public comments had expressed concern about this and it was tabled until the next meeting so it could receive further consideration.
Screen shot of FEMA Flood Map with 123 directly opposite Sandy Beach peninsula::
